>Here is at a gene sequence from clear lake hitch that I found
>on Genbank. There are more. Im not sure why he thinks they
>are introgressed? I haven't read that anywhere?
>
>
> /organism="Lavinia exilicauda"
> /mol_type="genomic DNA"
> /strain="Clear Lake"
>
> 1 ggcgcttgca ggtactccga ttacccgggc cgatggtgca
>attgttggtg ttcaatgcca
> 61 ttatcaaagg taggggatct ctgngacytt ctgcactttc
>tcgtgnaact gggagnccat
> 121 ttaatgggta ctttcatgaa ccgcaggctc caaaatgtaa
>gcagtgatgc cttgaggcca
> 181 acatgggtcc cttatgcctc aacakaggct ggtgaa
>
>There is pretty good evidence that this is a unique species.
>Differences in the gill arches that would make sense for a
>more lake-oriented feeding habit as they are used in filering
>algea and plankton, and a deeper body, also often associated
>with slow and still-water environments.
>
>Lastly...someone find me a good definition of a subspecies :)
>
>
>Ryan, I think you are hitting the nail on the head here with many aspects of this issue. I like your view on biodiversity, rare among hardcore bass fishermen. Personally, I fully support preservation/conservation of native species and at a larger scale biodiversity. Much of what everybody complains about is soundly based in science and motives; bass fishermen just perceive anything that threatens their hobby as a threat, and in most instances their perceptions are completely wrong. Whats tha saying, you cant see the trees through the forest, or something like that. Its also apparent that you are benefiting from your travels and education
:-).

Many years ago I gave up talking about biological issues with the general public, its not worth it. I still throw in a brief opinion on-line from time to time, but avoid any in-depth discussions. It would take too long to really explain this stuff and Id rather be out fishing.

With that said I will say this. Im rusty on this issue, I did look into it in-depth years ago and as stated my opinion was that the Clear Lake hitch sub-species no longer exists (what does that mean?; It means genetically its not pure enough to be legally designated as a separate species/sub-species; if you review all available info its not cut and dry). Nobody is argueing that the Clear Lake hitch isnt different from a regular hitch, because it is. I do believe I found information stating introgression likely eliminated the pure Clear Lake hitch genetics. Both hitch, regular hitch (Lavinia exilicauda)and Clear Lake hitch (Lavinia exilicauda chi), have been in Clear Lake for a long time. Do you honestly believe the two havent hybridized? The question becomes to what extent, and that is a hard question to answer. And finally, my answer is based on experience with issues of this type; hybridization occurs much more frequently than most people think. You hit the nail on the head when you asked what is the definition of a sub-species, and legally that issue is complex and Im not even going to attempt to answer that question.

Youve provided a genetic sequence above, and being lazy, Ill just ask you instead of searching for the answer myself. Can you provide the sample information associated with the sequence above (when was it collected?), and can you provide a sequence from a "regular strain" hitch so that we can see the difference? Then of course you will have to interpret such that we can all understand how pure the baseline CLH hitch is to the baseline regular hitch (but the reference sample from regular hitch must be a recent sample for it to have meaning).